Conservative core seeks a contender

The Los Angeles Times ^ | January 20, 2007 | Mark Z. Barabak

[Reagan Man]

>>>>He said on Brit's show that social conservatives are about 35% to 40% of the GOP.

I caught Fred Barnes remarks on Brit's show the other day. IIRC, Barnes said that more then half of the GOP were social conservatives and 35%-40% of those social conservatives were religious conservatives.

Btw, being an independent is like being an unaffiliated voter, along political party lines. Being a social conservative is more along the lines of ones political ideology.

[Sunsong]

Because my presence in the GOP galls people like you so much.

That may be one of the only honest things you have said. So you are the kind of person who does things to deliberately upset others? What an admission! And you prefer to not just upset them but to gall them? And you, I guess, like to do this over and over - because you did write the letter about leaving the GOP. So now you're back I guess - so that you can gall some people (if you can) and then perhaps you'll write another letter saying that you're leaving again?

[Sunsong]

Perhaps there is a transcript of Brit's show?

About 47% of voters in the last election identified themsleves as independent.

[Afronaut]

Can you tell when people come back from happy hour and jump on the PC and start typing? I'm sure you can.

[Sunsong]

Let's look at your numbers based on what you say you heard. 32% of voters are republican. over half - let's say 17% are social conservatives. 47% are independents. It is still the independents that are needed to win.

[Reagan Man]

>>>>Perhaps there is a transcript of Brit's show?

I'll take a look see later on. It stuck me at the time, because I haven't agreed with Freddy Barnes much in recent years.

>>>>About 47% of voters in the last election identified themsleves as independent.

That could very well be.

[EternalVigilance]

Maybe you should go out and buy a sarcasm detector.

[EternalVigilance]

LOL...

[Reagan Man]

You're still confusing independent voters and social conservative voters. The last election was an off-year election, a mid-term election and they always get a lower turnout. So, if a whole bunch of conservative Republicans stayed home last November 7th, I'm not surprised that 47% identified themselves as independents. If thats what you mean.

IIRC, roughly 36% of voters identified themselves as Republicans in polls taken during the last election cycle. While 37% identified themselves as Democrats. I guess that leaves 27% to be divided between independents and actual third way political parties, like the Libertarian Party and the Constitution Party.

[Leonine]

Detente ended in 1982, shortly before the elections. (Cf. Westminster address in June of that year.) If detente had been your (and your prof's) contention, then he would have had the (bad socialist) arguments of Nixon, Ford, and Carter. So, sorry for the misunderstanding.

I agree with your academic that it was smarter to sell wheat than donate it to the Soviets, and SDI was a large economic challenge. But it is simply an historical inaccuracy that every scrap of wealth was confiscated for the purpose of buying wheat. The bottom line is that the Soviet Empire had greater soil resources and many resources much greater than America's. It was the Socialist system that failed for decades to realize the development of their natural wealth. Socialism, which is the same as "liberalism," doesn't work. This is why the Reds failed. Thank God that Reagan didn't continue propping them up as both parties had done for over a decade.

[jellybean]

We need a perfect candidate, one who stands for our side of the issues and yet has no skeletons in the closet.

Just a suggestion...we need to convince him to run!

FRED THOMPSON

The RIGHT man for the job!

[Leonine]

Sunsong Li, if you would show us all some poll numbers to back up what you're saying, instead of Barnes' gut feeling, then I could show everyone why nearly every poll is mathematically worthless. This, however, is on a much lower level. Everyone votes, not just the GOP. How many independents are social conservatives? I realize this is but an anecdotal remark, yet I must point out that many poor people in my region of the country vote Dem, although they are very much socially conservative. The reasons for this are complex, but mostly, I believe, it is a case of poor education and gullibility. Reagan got those Dems.

[Reagan Man]

Can't find that transcript. But according to CNN.com, 2006 election exit polls show that 38% of voters identifed as Democrat, 36% Republican and 26% Independent. That sounds more in line with the facts. Based on ideology, 20% identifed as Liberal, 47% Moderate and 32% Conservative.

[narses]

+

Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic Ping List:

Add me / Remove me

Please ping me to all note-worthy threads on Pro-Life or Catholic threads.

I’m pro-choice. I’m pro-gay rights, Giuliani said. He was then asked whether he supports a ban on what critics call partial-birth abortions. “No, I have not supported that, and I don’t see my position on that changing,” he responded. Source: CNN.com, “Inside Politics” Dec 2, 1999 http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Rudy_Giuliani_Abortion.htm

ANDERSON COOPER 360 DEGREES (November 14, 2006)

RUDY GIULIANI (R), FORMER MAYOR OF NEW YORK CITY: I'm pro- choice. I'm pro-gay rights.

KING: Giuliani supports a woman's right to an abortion, and back in 1999, he opposed a federal ban on late-term abortions.

GIULIANI: No, I have not supported that, and I don't see my position on that changing.

KING: Immigration could be another presidential landmine. Back in 1996, Mayor Giuliani went to federal court to challenge new federal laws requiring the city to inform the federal government about illegal immigrants.

JEFFREY: He took the side of illegal immigrants in New York City against the Republican Congress.

KING: Giuliani opposes same-sex marriage but as mayor, he supported civil unions and extending health and other benefits to gay couples. He also supported the assault weapons ban and other gun control measures opposed by the National Rifle Association.

GIULIANI: I'm in favor of gun control. I'm pro-choice.

Republican Big-Wigs Support Pro-Abortion Event in NY

Pro-abortion Governor George Pataki and New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, who also supports unrestricted abortion, are co-chairs of the 2000 Choice Award Presentation to be held on May 30 at the St. Regis Hotel in New York City. The event is sponsored by the Republican Pro-Choice Coalition, a group that is campaigning for the removal of the pro-life plank from the Republican National Platform.


http://www.nationalreview.com/murdock/murdock200503010743.asp

[Popocatapetl]

"You seem to be saying that for conservatism to be a success, it must be tempered with more moderate, more centrist and even with some liberal policies. Have I got that right?"

Not at all. Any more than by saying that because State laws are inferior to federal laws, they ought to be abolished.

But that is pretty much how I would describe conservatism as it relates to republicanism. Republicanism, simply put, is the belief in representational government. And conservatism is a subset of republicanism.

Conservatism is also is a subset of what a president does, and should do in office.

For example, whenever the president considers an issue, any issue, he hopefully does not say to himself, "What is the conservative point of view on this?", before he considers anything else.

Bill Clinton did do something like that but with his daily polls, and it was a disaster. It is not leadership. He stood for nothing, did little, and then only what the polls said. He was a wind sock.

Certainly, *if* there is a conservative viewpoint on a subject, that should be part, and a strong part of his eventual decision. But not because *others* believe in it, but because he, as president, believes in it. Again, hopefully, the two are in sync. But the final decision is his.

Nobody doubts for a second that when Reagan did something, he did it because he believed in it, or because he knew that it was an intermediate step to achieving what he did believe in.

Yet, I could never look at him as a true conservative. This is because he was a Roosevelt democrat. In my family, there is no expletive reserved when speaking of Roosevelt. Truman and JFK only merit sneering contempt. Call us "blue blood" republicans.

But while I do not see Reagan as a true conservative, I do see he as a much greater figure, in being a republican. He was elected by the people, as their representative. And this is what he did. Issues come and go, but he ended a dire threat to the world that lasted 45 years, and secured for much of the world more freedom, and for America, far better security well into the future.

This was beyond being a conservative. This was leadership.

If you try to elect a candidate because he is a conservative, you are missing the boat. Elect a leader who has conservative values. He may not be a perfect conservative, but you have to trust that because of those values, he will represent you in the best way he can.

[timer]

Well, IF we get a republican president in 08', by getting our ACT together, JEB could fill any one of several cabinet positions. But first we have to WIN, somewhat in part by letting the demonrats self-destruct...

[PSYCHO-FREEP]

This is what we're up against....This isn't some liberal propaganda either it is real. There are some of us who research things rather thoroughly even though it is quite disturbing at times. The data can be viewed in total at Pewresearch.com.

[timer]

Does anyone here have a bio on Haley Barbour? It's probably not even a blip on his radar screen but how does he stack up against the other contenders? Would that not be interesting : Haley Barbour, US President; chosen by the people before he really knew it? (Forest Gump?)

[Sunsong]

Thanks for finding that! So that still means the 47% moderates must be appealed to.

[Reagan Man]

>>>>>But while I do not see Reagan as a true conservative.... If you try to elect a candidate because he is a conservative, you are missing the boat.

I see. Well, most Freepers would disagree with you. Personally, I want a leader sitting in the White House who is a conservative. Someone who supports the Constitution and represents the conservative movement in America today. Not someone who supports a 20% conservative agenda, but rather someone who supports a 100% conservative agenda.

You equating the abolishing of state laws because of some perceived inferior notion as they may relate to federal law and, the Republican Party rejecting moderate-centrist-liberal influences, is an irrational and illogical analogy. One bordering a fallacy. The Republican Party has done fine over the last 27 years, advancing a conservative agenda for itself. Since 1980 the GOP party platform has been consistently conservative.

At least your rhetoric is getting clearer with every post you make, revealing your agenda. You're no conservative. Your remarks continually ignore much of the conservative successes the GOP has enjoyed over the last quarter century. You seem to have little desire to understand, appreciate or embrace the conservative shift that occurred back in 1980. You seem lost in some political twilight zone.

Ronald Reagan ran for POTUS in 1976, 1980 and 1984 on a campaign agenda that promoted a strong national defense, limited government, tax reform and pro-life issues. No matter how you want to define it, that is a conservative agenda. Reagan's goals were to beat back Soviet communism and win the Cold War; get the economy back on track; give workers serious tax relief; and reduce the growth of the welfare state. For the most part, Reagan met those objectives. Political conservatism was proven a workable alternative to liberalism. In this case, an optional governing philosophy that was highly successful in the end.

>>>>>In my family .... Call us "blue blood" republicans.

Small "r"? LOL I think the proper term for you is, Rockefeller Republican.